the very results you mention would have gone to Senna had it not been for his misfortune
That’s a highly-questionable argument at best. Karun Chandhok finished 14th in Australia. And yes, Senna retired with a mechanical problem – the hydraulics. But he retired on lap 4 of 58, so to suggest that he would have finished ahead of Chandhok is ridiculous. Especially considering that Chandhok was only about eight hundreths of a second behind Senna in qualifying. Chandhok’s second 14th place came in Monaco. While Senna’s retirement was once again mechanical – hydraulics again – it was on lap 58 of 78. There were still a good 20 laps to go. 20 laps of Monaco.
Whatever the case, you seem to have misinterpreted my intentions. My point is not that Chandhok out-performed Senna when they were team-mates. Rather, I’m simply highlighting that despite being a glorified shopping trolley, it was possible to do things with the F110, and therefore, people who claim that Senna’s 2010 season should be disregarded have no leg to stand on. Senna should be judged on 2010 and 2011 rather than 2011 as some of his supporters have been calling for.
And if Senna was ahead of Chandhok when he retired from both races, that just goes to further my point: that the F110 was good enough to be considered a car.